Does JKR's portrayal of woment combat sexism?

[cindysphynx]

Judy wrote:

>I think that characters like Molly Weasley show that
> women can be strong, that they make things happen, that they 
>count.  I think reading about Molly Weasley encourages people to 
>see mothers in a positive light.  Since many girls identify 
>strongly with the maternal role, and with their own mothers, I 
>think reading about Molly Weasley helps girls to see themselves in 
>a positive light.

I would dearly love to believe this.  I really would.  But I have 
some problems with it.

Many girls and boys already have role models in their lives 
fulfilling the maternal role.  And the teacher role.  And the nurse 
role.  Children already know that women can be strong and fulfill 
those roles.

What many children do not know or experience is strong women in 
other roles.  The airline pilot role.  The plumber role.  The 
surgeon role.  That is why I think it is far more useful for 
children to see women in these roles -- not because these jobs 
are "better" or "more valuable" but because seeing women in these 
roles allows the child to see something they might not otherwise 
experience.  

> I don't think an offhand reference to some female MoM (minister of
> magic, not mother) does anything like this.  There's nothing to
> identify with, no character to capture the imagination.  There's 
>just  not enough in these passing references to alter girls' views 
>of themselves. If the goal is to have girls grow up thinking they 
>can change the world, I think the character of Molly Weasley's
> accomplishes more than all those contrived references to female
> witches who had leadership positions in the past.  Thinking of 
>oneself as valuable and capable is more important than seeing 
>particular careers as appropriate for women. 

Mmmm, I don't agree with you on that last sentence.  You can depict 
a woman as a capable homemaker, but I don't see how that depiction 
will encourage girls to see themselves as capable of changing the 
world.  As a stay-at-home mom, even I don't see how my success or 
competence in this role will encourage my daughters to think they 
can change the world.

It's perfectly fine to have homemaker Molly Weasley as the most 
developed character in the books.  We ought to be honest with 
ourselves, though, and realize that this fact means the books do not 
have very good role modeling of women in non-traditional careers.  I 
guess I can't get behind the idea that depicting a strong homemaker 
is likely to encourage girls to see themselves as exerting influence 
and enjoying success in some other domain that is not the home -- 
such as in the business world.  Similarly, I can't see how depicting 
an especially competent black basketball player is likely to help 
black children envision themselves as chemists.  

I also sense that you're setting up a comparison between Molly on 
the one hand and contrived and token mentions of women on the other 
hand, and then going on to say that the portrayal of Molly is 
better.  I don't think anyone is arguing, however, that token 
mentions of women are what the books need.  That's why I don't find 
the argument especially compelling.
 
> So, if Molly Weasley is so great, why do I think JKR's portrayal of
> women could be better?  Well, because there's only one of her.  


Yes, but . . . 

Are you saying you want to see more Molly Weasley homemaker 
characters, or are you saying that there ought to be women in non-
traditional roles who *are* better developed?  I'd much prefer the 
latter, myself.


> And, then there's my second point, which was that JKR's brief
> references to women in traditionally male roles might actually be
> harmful to kids' views of women.  This admittedly is speculative, 
but
> I think kids might have gotten a better impression of women in the
> Wizarding World if JKR had left out those token references to
> successful women in the past.

<snip>

>If JKR had set up the WW so that
> women were forbidden to work in the Ministry of Magic, a lot of 
girls
> would probably bristle (Hermione-like) at the unfairness of it all,
> and perhaps be motivated to succeed in government as a way of 
showing
> up sexist men.  But, that's not what JKR did.  Instead, she made it
> clear that women can work in the Ministry, but then showed us a
> complete failure as the only example of a woman (in the current 
time
> frame of the story) who does so.  The (unconscious) impression 
girls
> may get is that women are allowed to work in government, but it's a
> disaster when they do. 

Mmmm, I think you're making a pretty big assumption there.  It 
sounds like you're assuming that when women meet *complete* barriers 
to their participation in a profession, they will respond as 
tenacious fighters who will be motivated to succeed in that 
profession.  But if women aren't absolutely barred from a profession 
and instead see women in that profession struggling, then they will 
form the impression that they shouldn't even bother to enter the 
profession.

As you might imagine, I don't think those assumptions are correct.  
Way back when I was considering career options, I did not even 
consider certain professions from which women were barred at the 
time.  In fact, it doesn't surprise me at all that the women who are 
pioneers in a profession might struggle at first.  That other women 
are struggling wouldn't deter me from entering the profession to the 
extent a prohibition would.  


>But, if someone asked me whether the books do a good job
> of combating sexism, I'd have to say "No." 

I would agree with this.  The problem is simply that the books have 
relatively few adult female characters, the adult female characters 
that do exist are almost entirely in traditionally female roles, and 
they don't even do much in those roles.  That is hardly a recipe to 
expand the horizons of young girls.


>I think portraying women's
> traditional roles as important will do more to raise girls'
> self-esteem and inspire them to "take on the male power structure"
> than will an occasional mention of a woman playing in (or winning) 
>the QWC. 
                                                        
I really don't think this is a fair comparison at all.  You're 
comparing a token and meaningless mention of a female character 
(female Quidditch players) against an in-depth and meaningful 
portrayal of a homemaker?  Obviously, a meaningful portrayal of any 
female character is more satisfying and inspiring than a token 
mention.

If JKR is interested in raising girls' self-esteem and inspiring 
them to take on the male power structure, however, then I think the 
best way to do that is to show a *variety* of female characters 
behaving competently in a *variety* of roles.

Besides, I can't help questioning what you mean when you suggest 
that JKR should "portray women's traditional roles as important."  I 
think she is already doing that.  Being a deputy headmistress is 
important.  Being a nurse is important.  Being a mother is 
important.  The problem, IMHO, is one of *balance.*  There aren't 
women in traditionally male roles, and this lack of balance can 
undermine a girls' self-esteem by suggesting that they can only be 
competent in a traditionally female role.  

There are, however, well-developed wizarding world male characters 
in traditionally female roles (all of the male teachers).  This 
sends the message that men can occupy traditional male roles *and* 
traditional female roles, whereas women are limited to traditional 
female roles.  I don't see how that can inspire self-esteem and 
confidence in young girl readers.

And adding more Molly Weasleys won't help.

Cindy